Armchair Book Review - "Even Death"

Hope all my readers had a great Christmas. Christ the Savior is born!

Among my gifts this year was the book Even Death by Wade Johnston. The book is published by Magdeburg Press and can be found at their website. I took some of my down time while out with my family to read the book, and after finishing it decided this book needed a little free publicity courtesy of me. I rarely dig into religious fiction, usually because the theology will at some point frustrate me too much. And Lutherans don't regularly show up in main stream publications of novels, so ya have to find more obscure books from more obscure publishers like this one. I actually came upon it and added it to my Christmas list when I was looking at Magdeburg's newest book which I also received for Christmas, Then Fell the Lord's Fire by Bo Giertz. Another fantastic book with fantastic essays and sermons from Giertz (focused particularly on the office of ministry). But if there is a such thing as a Giertzian Lutheran, I am one of them, so of course it is wonderful.

Back to Johnston's novel. The book's synopsis is listed on the publisher's website, but I'll offer my own as well here for those too lazy or more curious after reading the publisher's offering, but I'll do my best to avoid any real spoilers. The premise of the story is four Lutheran pastors from America who were college buddies do a bit of a reunion vacation and tour historically significant sites in Germany. Four terrorists hailing from I believe it is three Middle Eastern nations (Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq) learn of the pastors' trip and plan to kidnap them and make them profess Allah as the true God and Muhammad as his true prophet (a confession known as the Shahada). The book also follows the authorities, led by two GSG 9 Agents, as they try to track down and stop the terrorists.

For those wondering, since Lutherans are oft inclined to ask, the book never specifies what flavor of Lutheranism the pastors are. However, based on the publisher, the strong German heritage of the pastors involved, and various hints from within the book it suggests a more "conservative" synod, likely Missouri or Wisconsin. My favorite quote supporting this theory is, "We're confessional Lutherans, not the kumbaya kind." Now while many ELCA pastors like myself consider ourselves confessional, the comparison is the key. Even those who consider themselves of a "confessional" brand while ELCA one would then have to wonder who the "kumbaya kind" is referring to. While it could be an internal comparison (I myself know some "kumbaya kinds") here it seems to be an synodical comparison, and if the ELCA is not the Kubmaya kind I'm not sure who would be. But that is about as close as the book comes to identifying the synod (through the liturgy presented one could perhaps come to a firmer answer), and as an ELCAer I can say it plays no real role. The book is certainly good and accessible for all Lutherans, in theology and presentation. There is room for this book for non-Lutherans too, not overutilizing Lutheran tribal language outside perhaps the beginning when they are touring these historical Lutheran sites, and so Lutheran history is mentioned. But theologically speaking, while it certainly comes from a Lutheran perspective, it is presented in a manner that will be acceptable to many other groups, especially those closer to Lutheranism in theology or practice.

While not overly theological, that is, it is still a story and is not concerned with theological reflection in every scene or chapter, it still has tons of theology expressed. For those looking for that either simply because like me they enjoy it or one is considering this for a church book group the book has it. I mean so much could be taken alone from my favorite quote in the book, "I wasn't baptized; I am baptized." Along with presenting the theme of faith under persecution the book has many small theological pieces that find their way in here or there including baptism, confirmation, the divine service, prayer and psalms, using the catechism, theology of the cross, and ultimately (as the title indicates) even death. The issues are deep and serious, it takes a very real and honest look, not using theology in some simple fix but engaging the complex reality the characters find themselves in. Quite appreciatively also is that the theology is not simply playing a role in the story of the pastors, but the surrounding characters, including the Muslim and non-believing ones.

As a piece of literature, the story was good. I got the book on Christmas night (Tuesday) and finished it Thursday night/early Friday morning. It held my attention, and was a relatively quick and easy read (coming from someone who does not reckon himself a fast reader by any measure). The author pulls off a very difficult style of 3rd person narration. For those wondering, 3rd person narration does not necessarily come in a single form. It can be 3rd person but really only follow the main character and everything still essentilaly comes from that character's perspective (the Harry Potter series is almost entirely done this way, never telling us something Harry does not know, and only in about four or five chapters in the entire series presenting a scene that Harry himself does not witness), there are styles that are more omniscient and Even Death employs one of them, this one while omniscient will often through a scene focus primarily on a single character, but it jumps from scene to scene as to which character the narration is focusing on. This style is more difficult but I think very important for this book. I think one or two characters are a bit too type cast and the author fails to deliver on presenting them, but for the most part was able to bring each character to life. This was most important perhaps in bringing the book's villains to life. We learn that the terrorists are acting for different reasons and learn a bit of the path and events that lead them to where they are. They also have different motives and faiths, while the entire act is under a radical Islamic group, it is helpful to see even the diversity in their goals, faith, and intentions. This style served the story well, which is an interesting story. Like I said, it is not just a theology book, it is a piece of fiction. It has action and a lot of building up towards what is to come next. Perhaps a bit too much foreshadowing at a few moments, but in general the book is driving one to wonder what will happen and how will the investigation unfold. For those who read with a faith background, the issue of persecution will add a personal layer as the very real scenario the book plays out will likely cause those with invested faiths to ask how they would react in that situation. This will be especially true for those who are willing to not let the "right" ideal answer stand as a facade to the very deep and real issue presented and really willing to ask it not rhetorically or as though scripted, but genuinely with an honest fear that the "If" this scenario presents could make one wrestle.

If the book fails on any level, it will be in two ways: the first is that it desperately needs an editor. I'm not sure if Magdeburg being a smaller publisher has no editor or needs to fire their editor, but the quality of simply proofreading was very poor, especially towards the end of the book which is the last place one wants one's reading to be hindered or interrupted by spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors. We all make mistakes. I regularly find them in my own blog and have to fix them, but this is not a published material, and you are not paying to read my blog. If you are one who is overly bothered and cannot get over mistakes in published material, this book is not for you. If you are like me and can get past that, frustrating as it is, read it. The other way the book will fail will likely be how one expects the book to end when reading it. If one has a strong opinion about it ending one way or another for whatever reason, the ending might be an issue or just what you were looking for. I won't say more so as to not spoil things, but those who read will perhaps know to what I am alluding to. But as the novel went on I asked myself how I would feel if the book ended this way or that, and particularly theologically I really had to think about it. It is also worth noting that because the story is following various characters it jumps a lot, and so if one is not good at following when books do that (although it at least capitalizes the first line of the new scene to indicate the transition) or do not like books that do that frequently, again this may not be the book for you.

I think the book is quick and easy enough of a read to be a good educational tool, but one must think hard about what context would be appropriate. The book is quite graphic at points and for the most part has a very real feel to it. It's a shame that I think it is probably a bit too serious a book for confirmation because there is a particular moment in the book that draws directly on confirmation, one that might be good for discussion with confirmands as they approach their own confirmation. Perhaps with the right group of kids one could do that, but I am not sure I am comfortable in general making that recommendation. Perhaps I underestimate our young people. I definitely think young adult or adult groups could handle this book and benefit from it. Those familiar with the book Silence by Shusaku Endo may understand the benefits that can come from fruitful discussions on this struggle of public apostasy and suffering. Where Even Death does Silence one better is that it is a contemporary situation in the Western world, making I believe more real the struggle. Great group discussions could be had, so long as there is a leader ready to ask the right questions, or someone in the group willing to share how the book challenged them, disturbed them, or preached to them.

For those who love theology and church history (especially of the Lutheran brand) this book is for you. It has enough to get the theological folks excited, but it also has a solid story for the more recreational readers grounded in our contemporary world and perhaps in our contemporary fears. It brings what we hear about happening to people of faith in the non-Western world into the Western world. It happens in Germany. It happens to Americans. It happens to pastors. The book while clearly Christian does well to not simply attack the Islamic religion or make Christianity "win", instead of it being about winning or losing, or who has the better God, the very absurdity of the Christian faith is put out there. It is no crusade against Islam, but perhaps to some degree is a sermon illustration on theology of the cross. Or at least I imagine that was the author's intention.

In short: It had plenty for me to reflect on, a story and Lutheran geekiness that I could enjoy, and in general I would recommend it.

Man of Steel Trailer Reactions

Superman has hands down been my favorite comic book superhero. I read probably once every year or two the entire Death of Superman-World Without a Superman-Return of Superman comic series (totaling something like 700 pages of graphic novel drama). As a child I bound around in Superman pajamas. As a college student I sported Superman hoodies (to countless fake threats of being shot thanks to Dane Cook's stupid joke). And all through my life I have watched Superman. I've seen from the old cartoons to the Superman Doomsday cartoon (total disappointment by the way). I've watched George Reeves and Dean Cain in live action shows and I've enjoyed Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh play him on the big screen. I love Superman. So when I went to see the Hobbit and saw the trailer for the next Superman movie The Man of Steel. I paid close attention.

Growing up in the age of Superhero movies, I've seen tons of approaches to characters, interestingly enough I have found the ones who were relatively unimpressive in the comics (Iron Man for example) have made great movies. Maybe because the writers have more room to adapt and work with the story and character to make him fit into a good movie.

But it is far harder to do that with Superman. His story and character has been iconic. It's really because of him we have comic book super heroes. Now over the years Superman has been done and redone in a myriad of ways, particularly in the DC Universe. Some are good, some are not. And with my loyal devotion to the character, I am very nervous as to how it will be. For one, I am very concerned about Christopher Nolan who has done a radically dark Batman. It makes sense since Batman is a dark hero character, and the psychology of it he knows how to use to get under the viewer's skin. Nolan also knows how to put a good cast around a hero - and in that respect, Man of Steel at first glace appears to reflect that. But one must be very careful in how much Superman is a head game overly-conflicted character, a dark atmosphere, or ultimately rebellious/questionable in integrity. These things, even if they are what makes many modern Superhero movies successful to young fans, in no way fit the mold of the character.

I also am very concerned about Henry Cavill as Superman. It sounds silly, but the way they worked his hair in screen shots like this one just kills the look, and his upper body does not fit the mold, that is, something about it doesn't work with his outfit. He has the superman chin, I'll give him that. But from all the screen shots I've seen he lacks the iconic image. Truth be told, when Warner decided to not do Man of Steel as a continuation of Singer's Superman Returns (which prior to the studio cutting Singer from the project that was the same title his next movie was going to use) they lost a great asset in Brandon Routh. I initially loved Routh for the same reason I was very much in favor of Singer's Superman movie, it respected and really felt a part of the Donner/Reeve Superman series. Routh was an amazing Superman in part because he adequately in looks and demeanor pulled off playing a great superhero and the actor who played that same character before him. He did not just look like Superman, he looked like the big screen Superman. My greatest fear when Superman returned to screen was if it would be true or would end up being too radical. Singer may not have understood what many modern fans wanted in terms of hero action-movie genre, but he understood the character of Superman and how the iconic Reeve films had essentially paralyzed any efforts to do something different. The truth is, this Superman reboot, which I expect to be very popular in the box office, likely will owe much of its success to Singer's film. Even the great number of people critical to the film needed it to really move on. Until Superman Returns they were still trying to be free from the great hurdle of the original Superman movie. So while Singer's film did not do what many may have hoped in the box office (although it still made a pretty penny worldwide), it finally allowed people to do a reboot without the reboot being the way Superman is brought back to films. Superman Returns handled the nostalgia.

That said, I'm still nostalgic. It is why regardless of what folks say, I loved Superman Returns and still do. It increased my respect for Bryan Singer as a director. And Routh was a phenomenal choice. Not seeing enough of his acting in the film or anything else, Cavill in my view when you look at him the first thought is "an actor playing Superman" not simply "that's Superman".


I was bothered by screen shots, but the trailer has convinced me (at least for now) that the costume idea will work well. I realize blue tights with red underwear worn over it is a bit unmodern. And the scaly almost armor imagery I think works, similar to what DC did with Superman's outfit in their recent universe reboot. And in the trailer, it does look good. Trailers give us limited screen shots of the hero, but what I saw I liked. In general the cinematography and directing from the trailer perspective looked pretty good. The flying sequence when we see him take off and then fly around the planet is really good and was perhaps the most iconic moment of the trailer.


We won't know until the movie comes out how much this plays in the plot, or how much this deviates from the original story and ultimately affects how they present the character, but the trailer in several parts indicates that Jonathan Kent does not want Clark to use his powers, at least not publicly. Kevin Costner I expect will execute that role wonderfully. What I like about that premise is not so much the story impact but the parental aspect. That is, usually the Kents' role in the series has been the great instillers of midwestern farmer morals that shape this man's powers into something to be used for good. They are good parents in that they raise him well. But what is missing from that is the parental concern for their child, that is I think expressed well in a father not wanting anyone to know about Clark lest the world treat him as a freak or the Government experiment on him or persecute him. Given it's place in the trailer and the shots of Superman in cuffs with an armed escort, you get the notion that it will play a bigger place in the story.

I also give some credit for this, that is, I think if an alien hero with unspeakable powers did show up, our distrust of him would lead to resisting him at first. This plot could be overplayed, or I'm afraid Superman will be some attitude bearing character who is no real hero until the end and that I would not be in favor of. This needs to be approached without compromising the character of Superman. And it can be and still have a very realistic piece to it.

I am looking forward to the return of Zod. Unfortunately I'm not sure how I feel about Michael Shannon playing him. I could kind of see it. Shannon has some of the physical characteristics that would take us back to Terrence Stamp's portrayal of him in Superman and Superman II. He also can play someone who is a bit socially awkward like Stamp's Zod. The question is can he play a dark, iconic, domineering villain? I'm not so sure. But he has enough qualities to fill the role I'm not upset about the thought. Although at one point Viggo Mortensen was rumored for the part which I could see him doing well. Bryan Singer originally had Zod as a character for his Superman movie but removed him because he only wanted one actor for the part: Jude Law (who I think could make an awesome Zod). Either way, he is a worthy opponent for Superman, and assures us of a good physical challenge to the character and with modern effects the ability for some super action sequences (so long as it is done wisely, it's not a Michael Bay movie after all). We don't get to see much of Zod in the trailer, only flashes in the action montage.

In general it is very clear that this next movie will be a reboot, and will take liberties to break away from past Superman screen portrayals. It definitely has potential to be good. But I am weary of how the character development in the story will jive with my understanding of Superman, and while there are some great and surprising casting choices I think for the likes of Lois Lane, the Kents, Jor-El, and Perry White it remains to be seen how our hero and villain will fare in their roles. I am particularly concerned with Cavill's character. He could surprise me, but the first impression disappointed me. Although it won't just be his fault if it is bad, we can already see from the trailer that personal struggle with being a hero and coming out as Superman will be particular features in the film, and that could be done in a way that would totally upset those who see Superman as an iconic character not just in image but in qualities.

The film does appear to feature a worthy opponent, some good screen shots, solid action, and will hopefully have a hero feel too it. And I do want Superman to gain some ground and return to movies a bit. I expect Nolan will please the general public because he knows how to give comic book characters a very real feel, but it remains to be seen if he will please me. Because I already liked Superman.

Luke 3 Remix in light of shootings

Because yesterday's shooting is on the mind of many as they approach worship this Sunday, I thought I would take a quick venture back into the Luke reading in light of the shooting. My previous blog on the text can be found here. The reading for Sunday can be found here.

I immediately here turn to John's advice on how the various people should live. I turn there because now we see both the importance and the limitation of such advice. We see its importance because we see that the world needs more compassion, it needs more care for each other not damage of each other. The life we are called to live should not, must not look like this. John and Jesus alike both call forth a different kind of living. God's law calls for a different kind of living.

The limitation that such teaching has also comes forth, because we can see how philosophy or teaching or even law does not save us. It does not remove sin or ultimately prevent terrible things from happening. No matter how strict, the law will be broken. But this is precisely the reality Christ is coming to save us from. As I said in my original post on this reading, were it ultimately up to how we change, it looks quite grim. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the nation looks on in shock, it destroys any claim that we have progressed beyond such a history. It means we still need a Savior. Of course that is not the only or even the main reason we are sad and rattled, but it certainly is an unspoken proclamation into our hearts.

And he is coming. One who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. As I thought about yesterday's violence, I thought about baptism. I thanked God that it was not just for adults. Whatever people think about decision theology, making decisions for Christ, or using baptism to show your commitment to God, yesterday we saw that children need promises of a Savior too. They need rescue from this world and death itself as well. They need the promise of baptism that they will rise to new life with Christ. All discussions on original sin aside (although I'm convinced by both scripture and experience that we are indeed born in sin) the last enemy to be defeated is death, and baptism has a powerful place in how it ties us to that victory. The declaration that Christ is coming with such a baptism is the greatest message to the ears of us fragile mortal souls. He comes and looses upon society this baptism. Some do it with no real knowledge or commitment, some ignore it completely these days, but when such tragedy strikes there is no promise greater than the promise of one baptism, it removes doubt of what God does for our children. It was spoken, it was done. Luther regularly would lift up how in baptism we have an event, a physical and oral event that all the senses and the records of history could definitively declare that these sacred promises have been given to us without a doubt. We could feel and hold on to the word as we do the water. There is no greater thing than to be able to firmly and without doubt declare God's election of a child, especially when we must bury that child. This was the wonder of Christ's coming, that all he was about to do, it could be summed up in the baptism he brings, because it could be given in the baptism he brings.


Society is starting to get lax on baptism, as the church falls more into obscurity. Parents are deciding to wait and let their children decide for themselves. Families are asking less "will you baptize your baby?" Even pastors are becoming in some circles more lax, trying to find excuses at times to tone down the necessity or importance of baptism. But at times like yesterday, there is no promise we cling to more than the firm promises of baptism, for the justifying faith and the outpouring cross are so intimately connected there. Baptism lets us use the cross to sustain faith in a personal way. Even when people are battling with how to interpret someone's belief or lack thereof there is no interpretation in baptism. And so part of the message of John is Christ is coming, and coming with the unbelievable gift of baptism. A gift given for the most basic of days and the most tragic of days.

The final thought is the expectation of the people. The people were wondering if John was the messiah. We can hear joy and hope in those words, but we can equally hear a desperation. As people are sometime eagerly and other times desperately longing for the messiah, right now some are doing so desperately. We look at this mess and ruin, and with utter shock look about for help. "Are you the one?" Who can offer comfort to such a tearful day? "I lift up my eyes to the hills, from where does my help come?" And as the Psalmist continues, "My help is in the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth." Past liturgies (and still in some churches today) in the opening part of the service the question would come "From where does your help come?" And the people would reply "Our help is in the name of the Lord who made heaven and the earth." And so as we lift up our eyes, wondering where is our help, wondering who can rescue us from this body of death, looking wherever there may be a glimmer of hope in hopelessness, John says not I, but he. John turned the people's attention towards the One who came, who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. As our hearts ache and long for One to turn to amid ongoing tragedy, trauma, and grief - may he point us likewise to Jesus. And the baptism he brings.

School shootings - part of Christmas

Be near me, Lord Jesus I ask thee to stay,
close by me forever and love me I pray.
Bless all thy dear children in thy tender care,
and take us to heaven to live with thee there.

The sweet song echoes with a dreary prayer, a tearful prayer, a desperate prayer for many mothers and fathers and indeed an onlooking nation. The season of hope, joy, peace, and love has been filled with a different air today. Many pastors and parishioners struggle with the book of Job, well today it feels like we have a classroom full of Jobs - a classroom full of families that have suddenly gone from blessing to curse. And so we struggle.

And like in that book, the temptation is to find out what has caused this horrible tragedy. Why did God allow this to happen, or for the more direct folks why did God do this? My answer is simple: I don't know and truth be told it makes no difference. One of the things that makes Job so tough a book for its readers is in fact we know a bit more than Job does, we're cued in to this conversation in the heavenly courts and it almost feels like God and Satan had some awful bet at Job's expense. The opening does not cure the reader's trouble with Job's encounter and story, if anything it makes it worse. And when Job finally gets his divine audience, he doesn't even get the info we as readers receive. And had he, would that have made it better? What possible explanation for God's action/inaction makes any of today any better?

There is a very depressing moment in Matthew's birth narrative of Jesus. Herod, upon hearing of the young Messiah's birth, for fear of losing his throne, unleashes a terrible massacre throughout the city of Bethlehem. Babies and young boys are all killed. It's a story we usually leave out of our Christmas plays and Christmas morning readings, we don't sing hymns about it. When people talk of the "spirit of Christmas" the deaths of children usually isn't included. But try as we might, we cannot remove from the narrative of Christ's birth the reality that he came to. The tragic shootings that have felt like they are happening with greater frequency, even the deaths of young children; this is the reality that Jesus came to. The times when no one doubts the presence of evil or the power of death, this is the world Jesus came into. The threat of death, the ability to be massacred - this is what God came into. There are two powerful things about this story: for one is Matthew pauses to speak about the grief that comes with such a tragedy - turning to Jeremiah, "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." How true do these words give expression to the slaying of children: The refusal to be comforted, the great weeping. Matthew names tragedy within Jesus' coming. But also it is not just that Matthew acknowledges tragedy, but he puts it within a story about Jesus, a story that ultimately is about his death and resurrection. It is not only incredibly honest to acknowledge the pain but incredibly theological to join such tragedy with the narrative of Christ's death. As a professor of mine once said, when everything is written by hand, copied by hand, when paper is an asset - every word counts. No story is put in Matthew for the heck of it, they are there because they matter to the story told. Many reasons can be given as to why this story is included, be it from the importance of the Jeremiah prophecy, to some comparison of rulers of this world's exercise of power from Christ's, to a history very similar to Moses', in any case, it matters to understanding Christ. And today we hear anew what that speaks of Christ, when we feel the hopelessness and the loss, the evil and the grief, and we see Christ come into that.

There is no explanation that satisfies why God let this happen. But the Gospel tells us that God did not do nothing. In fact days such as this one are placed right in the story of the One who came to die for us, from those we deem the most innocent to those we deem the most evil. For the Herods and shooters, for the children of Bethlehem of Judea and Newtown, CT. That is the world he entered into, that is the sin and death that had to be defeated. The presence of such things is not a tale that God is absent but it is the narrative of Immanuel - God with us. People die, even children die, Christ even when he escaped the killing in Bethlehem only prolonged the inevitable mortal end of the cross.

But God raised him from the dead. The inevitable end is conquered by a compassionate new morn. He took the sins of the world, and poured out his righteousness. It means to the places of greatest evil, where we could no longer stand in denial of sin righteousness could be proclaimed, could shine, could forensically become the reality. It means in a world full of death we could dare be baptized into Christ's death and be raised to new life. It means even in death, things are being made new. Many families are as Job today, robbed of their loved ones, as under a curse, futures lost. It doesn't matter if those children were going to be cancer curers or grow up to struggle to hold down a job, they all had futures that would touch lives. They all already touched lives. The teachers and principle touched lives. And all those futures are lost. We can wail and weep and mourn that. The gospel is not the great fix-it making it all sunshine and hummingbirds, the gospel is the promise that shines in the midst of the darkness, and that cannot be put out by it. The gospel is what endures - the grass withers and the flowers fade, but not the Word of the Lord. Many families have lost like Job, but no family has lost Christ - no bullet can rob us or the dead of Christ. Like the disciples who could not prevent the little children at Christ's command none have the power to prevent his own from coming to him. Not even death. For Christ was raised from the dead. When we live we live to the Lord, when we die we die to the Lord, so (as the Apostle says) whether we live or die we are the Lord's.

Futures are lost. The world has changed. Grief and tears pervade. It is tragic and there is no simple quick-fix, but Christ came to this reality, what it cannot do is cannot separate us from him. And where Christ is there is the yes to the promises of God. Why is it among questions of how the wicked prosper or the righteous suffer God so says "The righteous shall live by faith" (Hab. 2.4)? Because faith holds firm to what cannot be lost: the One who is not only present but has in fact done something for us, no matter who we are in the story. A light that shines in the darkness we are in, and though we still see the darkness, it cannot overcome the light. It cannot take away the life found in the light, for that life looks to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. There is a beautiful prayer in the funeral liturgy that reads, "Help us in times we cannot understand to believe and trust in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection to life everlasting." Help us to live by faith, when we have no words to justify what happened, when no words can justify what happened. I can't say why God let a man walk into a room and start shooting, but I can tell you that he came for such as these. It's part of his story. In the same book of Christ's cross we read of the tears of Rachel, and we read "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."

Bless all thy dear children in thy tender care,
and take us to heaven to live with thee there.

Luke 3 - the ax and the cross

Well we are already in the THIRD week of Advent! And as is typical in the RCL, the second and third week this year feature John the Baptist (or Johnny B as I like to call him). Johnny B can be difficult to preach on, he's no casual preacher. And he can either be twisted into some works-righteousness decision theology preacher (in which case John the "Baptist" seems a very appropriate title) asking you to make a choice for Christ or he can be some justice lover who has left unjust society behind and preaches on the fringe now. And of course he can be tons of things in between. The point is, Johnny B is hard to lock down, and harder to preach. He's like a Jesus who never died for you.

But let's take a look at this weeks take on the wilderness prophet. The text can be found here.

Some people begin sermons with inspirational stories or a joke, John starts with an insult, "You brood of vipers!" The depth of this accusation come to light in the following verse when he says we do not get to use Abraham as an excuse for our lives or a way to avoid the wrath to come. The claim of being Abraham's children is contrasted with his claim that they are instead children of serpents - which immediately has beyond the initial insult of the phrase a contrasting illustration to who the people would claim to be. You say child of Abraham, John says child of a serpent (an OT character with a much different connotation). Instead of being of the promise, they are children of a cursed creature, cursed for its role in the garden. Instead of being of the line that promises blessing to others the implication is that we deceive others or cheat others. This even begins to come out in some of John's practical advice of living for people in the crowd, tax collectors should not be taking more money for themselves, soldiers should not use their power wrongly against others. It was also a common belief at the time that vipers ate their way out of their mother's womb. Is there a better imagery for the way sin has so infected and rampantly damaged society in general? We eat our way through it, we gnaw on each other. It also says something in relation to God: we turn on the one who bore and created us. All of this stands in John's opening words: you brood of vipers.

And it certainly gives perhaps a negative tone to the whole message, yet we need to pause and reread it after coming to the final words "With so many other exhortations, he proclaimed the good news." John's message ultimately is founded on bringing good news. All this is put in the context that Luke gives us that John has come to prepare the way. The key comes in verse 15-16: his preaching brings about a messianic expectation, and John replies with the promise of one who comes to baptize with the Holy Spirit. One of the things the Bible oft shows is that with judgment comes action - namely God is breaking into the world. Sometimes in a terrifying way like exile sometimes in a powerful way like an exodus to freedom, but warnings of judgment (judgment coming or judgment passed) usually indicate that God is going to bring something about. A message of repentance and judgment, of telling us not to flee the wrath, to change our lives, it comes with a hopeful expectation. John indicates as much when he says the ax is at the tree.

At the tree, the tree has not been cut off. If God can raise children of Abraham from stones, what about from a brood of vipers? What about from Gentiles? From the sleazy tax collectors or empirical roman soldiers? If the turn in John's message is always to prepare the way, if it is he is coming (unto the moment he gets to declare he is here) then the words of judgment are that for how ready God is to cut us off we aren't. The message of repentance is not simply some altar call to choose God and show God you have not abandoned him, it is God saying to turn back and for he has not abandoned you! With the ax at the tree, One is coming, he will bring the Holy Spirit, the One who works our sanctification and repentance, the One who ignites the faith that makes us sons of Abraham (not our bloodline). Jesus is coming! And as I said before, the difference between him and John is he will die for you. With the ax at the root, when we are at the place where we should be cut off entirely God comes closest, enters in human flesh, and instead of us being cut off and us crying "My God, My God why has thou forsaken me?" that becomes the words of his when he takes the cross. When he takes all our sin and lets the ax strike.

Sometimes we feel utterly cut off or we wonder why we or others are not. It's not because we could turn and all be nicer people, following John's practical instructions. The message to bear fruit, the call to change our outward lives, does not prevent Christ from coming. And when he came he fulfilled God's promise. He made children of Abraham as surely as God made Isaac for an old barren couple. John's message is not to scare us into being good kids. It's to prepare the way of the Lord. The unquenchable fire of judgment is juxtaposed with the [refining] fire of the Holy Spirit.

If judgment is accompanied by action, the expected action to the judgment here is the trees to start being cut down, but John has been baptizing and preaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the way of the Lord was not to act on the judgment with the ax but with the cross. The first reading for Sunday perhaps puts it best, "The Lord has taken away the judgments against you, he has turned away your enemies. The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst; you shall fear disaster no more." (Zephaniah 3.15)

We mustn't remove Jesus from the preaching of John. If we remove Jesus from the preaching of John we are left with the hope that we all change our lives enough. We are left with the hope that the soldiers stop abusing their power and the tax collectors take only the fair share, that those with two coats will always give to the one with none or that the food of this world will be distributed in a manner that sees that no one starves. In that vein the fruits of repentance looks as though a great drought has spread through the whole of human history, such preaching leading to little fruit, much of which rots quickly. Not only is such a change not what saves us, but such a change seems by and large absent.

How does Jesus change this? Because he bears much fruit. And we get to partake of his fruit. Because he doesn't let forgiveness rest on whether we repented enough but rather has a word of forgiveness the repentant may rest in. Because he was the one tree that when cut down, God raised from the dead - like a fig tree that has withered, died, and yet now bears the spring leaves and bloom. Because he baptizes with the Holy Spirit, who gives us the faith that grafts us into the tree, into the family of God. And a whole millenia of sorry human history is not too much for him to bear or too dark to snuff out his light - which shines for us still each time he comes to us. Advent celebrates the coming of Christ into this world, when we hear just the situation that Christ entered into, and just what he does with it, then we know why the Christmas message is no mere birthday party, it is an announcement that to the judgment God has acted in the most marvelous, loving, and gracious of ways.

And Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. And again he will act, by gathering his wheat together, by separating us from the chaff that we ourselves through all of human history have not been able to separate from ourselves.

We mustn't separate John's preaching from Jesus, because John did not die for us. Sometimes we want the practical words, like the people in the crowd we ask "What should we do?" and John does have that, and we ought hear it. But for how much John tells us of what to do: be baptized, repent, obey the law - John also tells us what God does - he comes. When we need him most - he comes. When we are as rebellious as vipers - he comes and lets us sink our teeth into him. And so we must not miss what John says - he comes, he is here! The Lord is in your midst, you shall fear disaster no more.

Why Teams needing pitching should target R.A. Dickey

It is no secret that the Mets are willing to trade current ace and reigning Cy Young winner R.A. Dickey. Dickey rightly won that award after going 20-6 with a 2.73 ERA, 1.053 WHIP, while striking out 230 batters in 233.2 innings (8.9 k/9 compared to a 2.1 BB/9). As I've noted in previous blogs, his value is a bit hard to determine (again I'll reference this great article by Rosenthal). But if your team needs pitching, Dickey should be your top target. Here's why:

1. His stats indicate he can impact your team. That is, beyond just the contribution of performance, top pitchers have other impacts for their team. They stop losing streaks (which he can do, being a 20 game winner last year for a mediocre at best team), increases team confidence each time he goes out there (he does not do this as much because he's underrated), energizes fans when acquired (underrated or not getting a Cy Young winner and rotation upgrade always enlivens fans), he gives bullpens the rest they need to be effective throughout the week (he led the NL in complete games and innings pitched last year). The positive impact a durable, reliable pitcher has is something teams need.
2. He's a knuckleballer. Good knuckleballers are highly underrated pitchers. But they shouldn't be, especially Dickey. Just as much as a good starter impacts the rest of the team and the effectiveness of other players, so do knuckleballers. This is because the pitch speed and adjustment to facing a knuckleballer can impact batters' swings for several games. Putting him especially say between two power pitchers who rely on blazing fastballs (same for the bullpen when he is relieved) can have a positive impact on those players' effectiveness because the batters' timing is still off from facing the knuckleballer.
3. Knuckleballers also age more favorably. Dickey's one downside may be he is rather old. But because he does not rely on velocity and the knuckleball puts far less strain on his arm, he likely has more longevity to his success and a smaller chance at injury. Therefore extending Dickey after acquiring him is not a horrible demand but a smart move.
4. He's a Cy Young winner. If you need pitching, and a Cy Young arm is available, you should get it. Especially when he just won the Cy Young. For whatever reason that one would assume Dickey is not a "true ace" he has shown how strong of a pitching asset he is. And really going back the last three years he has been a very effective pitcher. But winning the Cy Young this year just shows how effective he can be.
5. His reported contract demands are very reasonable. Dickey is only owed 5 million this year. And he reportedly wants two more years and 26 million more. Considering the current pitching market, which is both unimpressive and dolling out millions to the likes of Joe Blanton, to get a Cy Young winner at an average annual salary of 10 million a year is a bargain. And since he is a knuckleballer, it is more likely to still be closer to a value by the end of the contract.

I'm a little surprised that no one has stepped up enough to get the Mets to ship him off, since they seem determined to do so. Considering the state of the Mets nation, trading Dickey who does not appear to be in the long term plan makes sense. But with James Shields traded and Zack Greinke signed, the market of top quality pitchers are thinning, making it the ideal time to deal him. If they wait until Annibal Sanchez signs that might be the best chance at top return, but the risk is by that point major players for Dickey will have moved on.

If I were to identify an ideal target for Dickey it would be Detroit. The Tigers need to do something to offset the increasing improvement of the Royals. They have the money needed to extend him no problem. They could slot him quit effectively between Verlander and Scherzer. Additionally, they could offer a the Mets in addition to young prospects/players a quality, controllable pitcher like Porcello to also offset that spot in the rotation. Exactly what prospects would go with him I don't know enough about Detroit's system to speculate, but the Dickey would be a great fit for them.

How much the Mets ask for, that is the one real question...

ELCA Seminaries...an unknown future

There is a lot of buzz going around with alumni of Luther Seminary where I received my masters of divinity. Mainly because at the close of the semester this week the president Richard Bliese resigned his position. Apparently a campus meeting was held for the announcement. It's the talk among my fellow alumni. A classmate of mine in fact is going to get an armchair theologian shout out to her blog post on the president's resignation.

Ever wonder where the term "scapegoat" comes from, well it is actually part of the Old Testament Day of Atonement. A specific word in the text will in some translations say "scapegoat" or others like the NRSV will have a footnote reading "traditionally rendered scapegoat", but whether the word belongs there or not is irrelevant, one can see how the colloquial term has its origins here. "The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness." (Lev 16.22). My two cents on when Bliese resigned was that he was made into a scapegoat for the failures of the whole institution. He said goodbye the Christian way - he asked forgiveness for his leadership. And like a scapegoat, he is now off to a wilderness.  But also like a scapegoat, he didn't leave with just his sins, but so it seems the sins of the entire institution have been placed upon him. The seminary announcements didn't do anything to alleviate that impression. Like this message from the office of the president every email and word I received on this announcement paired his resignation with the financial ruin of the seminary and the bright future the seminary has with its interim CFO. We get two sentences of how visionary the president was and great he was before the announcements go to work at tarnishing that memory.

Now I was never a full on cheerleader for President Bliese. And I am not aware of all the issues that have led to the seminary downfall. But whatever role he played in its struggles, the sins of this institution ought not completely be placed upon him. But not even so they fall on the "right people" but because the Lamb who was slain took on those sins, and our future there then finds hope in resurrection. We don't have hopeful new days because we cast out the sinner who we shall put the whole blame on, we have hopeful new days in the new life given to us in the forgiveness of sins. And I hope someone forgave the president when he owned up to whatever his part was and asked for forgiveness, heck it is a school for training people to that endeavor. And I ask all my readers to keep him, his family, and the seminary in your prayers.

But since the seminary has so raised the issue of financial crisis in conjuncture with this event, I thought I might say a few words on that. It is a scary thought to consider that seminaries (not just Luther, not just ELCA) are struggling financially, and at the same time students are receiving an increasing financial burden leading to debt that pastor salaries struggle to pay. Pastors feel the burden, churches trying to maintain pastoral stability but cannot because they cannot afford to pay a pastor enough to meet that burden are feeling the impact, and as we see here also the seminaries are under a great burden. Everyone knows that to some degree something must be done. Here are some of my thoughts for the ELCA:

1. Close seminaries: the ELCA has too many seminaries, this is a consequence of a series of mergers and the inability for those mergers to happen if a seminary is lost. Well the mergers are now far past, it is time to consolidate. We should be cutting from 8 down to at least 4, if not fewer. Obviously no one wants it to be their seminary that closes, it is ok if a different one closes, but we need less seminaries so as to focus synod resources. But someone needs to take the task of honestly assessing the seminaries. An extreme alternative would be to essentially close all the seminaries and focus all synod resources on supporting seminarians as they attend other seminaries and divinity schools, maybe have a program at one such school where students would have to spend a semester getting necessary "Lutheran theological classes" (akin to how now students have to have a "Luther year" at one of our seminaries if they attend a non-ELCA school).
2. Offer non-MDiv track to ordination: online classes and distributive learning programs are already changing the shape of programs somewhat, but we need to go further. One of the key ways to cut costs is to no longer make the track to ordination require a masters degree. I'm not saying get rid of schooling entirely, but to break out of the Masters model that has permeated for so long but is no longer necessary or feasible. The logic is that it removes two major things which impact financial flexibility of the seminary and the seminarian: to the seminary it is no longer being held down by the standards and curriculum requirements that accompany accreditation as a graduate theological school. These requirements for example dictate a minimum number of professors and staff, no longer needing to be accredited would give the school and the church more options on how it will choose to educate and train leaders. The benefit for the student financially is that if it is no longer a masters program, not only does the financial flexibility hopefully lower tuition, but more importantly it removes a bachelor degree from the required educational track. The truth is the Masters of Divinity is really a fake masters degree anyways. One does not do masters level work to get a masters of divinity. The academic standard of my undergrad far outweighed that of my graduate education. The bottom line is I took on a lot of debt to get an undergrad, and while I like many of my peers would agree that it was valuable or a good thing, it is not necessary towards my pastoral training. ELCA seminaries have no expectation of what you learned prior to coming to seminary. At best maybe the ability to write a paper or a maturity factor, neither of which ultimately require a degree to achieve. Or if you received an undergraduate in something like theology, you will find there were classes that ultimately could be skipped to save money at seminary. But seminaries cannot give you credit for classes you have taken in your undergraduate because you cannot get graduate credit for something you got undergraduate credit for. But were this no longer a graduate program, but say a certificate program the seminary could be free to allow students who did get an undergraduate to perhaps count some of that towards their track to ordination. Students could therefore either get a head start towards ordination through undergraduate, or avoid undergraduate debt entirely. If the ELCA had two seminaries, one could remain accredited to allow a masters track at a higher cost for those who choose that route (especially for those who intend or contemplate doctoral studies) while the other could be a non-graduate certificate education program with the flexibility to its curriculum in a way that lets them lower costs and allow students to have either no burden of undergraduate requirements/costs or to apply it towards the certificate as the church sees fit.
3. Cut the amount of required courses for ordination: This is actually I think the toughest. Especially since each generation actually adds to requirements how do we start cutting things out? Right now most MDivs in the ELCA take a minimum of three years plus a full year internship - a four year program. Cutting even a single year would save students thousands. Consolidating the curriculum would perhaps also limit the amount of classes that need to be taught each semester hopefully saving the seminaries money too (I'm not as confident on that though). But there are some classes that just are not necessary towards pastoral ministry. Helpful, yes. Interesting, sometimes. But necessary? Also a clearer expectation as to what is taught in what class and at what point then a student should be taking certain classes though more restricting will save a lot of time and therefore allow more consolidation. Too many concepts were taught and retaught from class to class in seminary. The history class covered the Arian controversy and then so did the class on Christology. Concepts like two kingdoms theology or law and gospel were "introduced" in so many different classes each professor taught it to us unaware of whether or not we knew what it meant. This can also happen if less time is given in certain classes to "small groups". Too much group time is wasted, either because people run out of things to talk about, or it becomes an endless cycle of clashing personalities, story swapping, or questions which no one answers. While there is some value in these, especially for people of certain learning styles, far too much time in some classes was allotted to this. If the claim is certain classes cannot be merged, they are wrong. Plenty of classes could cover more topics if group time was shorter or happened on fewer occasions.
4. Go completely online: I would hate this personally. Online classes were my least favorite. I took some one semester and pretty much committed to not do that again whenever I had the choice. But there would be a series of benefits to a completely online education. For one, it could be done anywhere which keeps students from having to sell homes or move or live on campus if they can still live with mom and dad. It would allow for perhaps also a more integrative programs, of seminarians perhaps even being able to get positions in churches that cannot afford full-time pastors while doing studies - which gives them income while studying and does a service to small financially strained congregations. Once upon a time it was commonplace for seminarians to have church positions and they would go off to these country churches on Friday, preach Sunday, do whatever other duties must be done before leaving Monday and having classes Tues-Thurs. Now with online we would not have to have the schedule restrictions that once were had but the same system could happen of students studying and serving. This would also be to the advantage of seminaries. One of the great costs is maintenance of older buildings. No longer having dorms or classrooms or cafeterias would minimize the amount of staff needed to run the institution and the costs of upkeep, utilities, etc. would be far lower than it is now.
5. Synod-wide priority towards pastors: what is tough about this proposal is it is a bit of stealing from Peter to give to Paul. That is, for all the great initiatives in synod spending, some could be cut in order to focus costs on the local missionaries. No one wants to advocate cutting the malaria campaign or ELCA world hunger, but something should be said of the greater church's responsibility to its institutions and pastors/leaders. As the ELCA expects this kind of education on pastors it needs to find ways to meet the financial burden that accompanies it. The seminaries cannot without more aid handle that burden. Congregations individually struggle to help their pastors meet that burden. I don't intend to advocate from where synods get the money to better support their seminarians, but many synods offer no financial support to seminarians either going into seminary from their synod or coming out of seminary to serve their synod (some are and should be applauded for this). More can be done, not just in individual seminarians but in supporting the institutions themselves which the ELCA relies on. More partnerships can be made, even facilities or other resources shared. 

These are just a few ideas. Many others I know are being floated around, by those far more privy to what all is going on, but as you can see even here what must or ought be done requires a great amount of shared vision and radical restructuring. It likely means more jobs lost, more buildings closed, more painful or controversial moments before things get better. None of these are particularly popular ideas either, because what would seem ideal seems to not work. 

My prayers go towards those impacted by the changes and struggles that continue to happen. Every model or idea is met with the reality that people's lives are about to shift and change and uproot. Whatever the future holds, it likely holds more days of resignations and blame, of new ideas or hopeful ventures. But in it all lets whether the storm, hold up those affected, and live in prayer and the hopeful advent that the dawn from on high shall break upon us and this entire mess we've made.

Lord Jesus, the office of preaching you gave that your name might be proclaimed and used among your people to set us free. We ask now then that you continue to keep that office strong in your church through stability and reform, renewal and newness of the institutions by which our leaders are raised up and prepared. And in all these things, forget not one little lamb touched by the changes. Though many have been counted as sheep for slaughter in this time, may you keep them firm in faith, sustained in life, and guided to new vocations. To them, to us all, Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy. 

Winter Meetings Follow Up

Well, the craziest time of the Baseball offseason has passed with Winter Meetings. Although this year they were overall relatively uneventful. The truth is that the days following Winter Meetings have been far more exciting baseball wise, capped off with the most recent announcement that the Rays-Royals pulled off a major deal sending James Shields and Wade Davis to the Royals for a great prospect package headlined by highly touted (and coveted) prospect Wil Myers.

But prior to Winter Meetings I made my own bold predictions about what would transpire, let's see how I fared:

1. Brewers make quiet additions. Well I was right about the quiet part. But I was wrong about the additions. The Brewers in fact made a subtraction when they lost infielder Eric Farris in the Rule 5 draft. In the end though this was good news, I particularly applaud the Brewers on their reported resistance on offering free agent Ryan Dempster anything more than 2 years, a limit I advocated Milwaukee put on free agent starters back at the beginning of the offseason when I first took a crack at how Milwaukee might go about the winter season. I'm glad Melvin did nothing desperate. Job security can prevent a GM from rash signings. In the end, things were quieter than I thought leaving me half right.
2. Twins will sign at least one starter and trade/sign a second. Again, I was half right. But I was stunned at how it happened. The Twins, shortly after handing Ben Revere CF by trading Span for a low level prospect (a move I criticized) Ryan turned around and sent Revere off for a starter now and a starter later. This is in fact the kind of return I was expecting on a Span trade. It was bold, but Ryan should perhaps get some credit for maximizing the trade value of CF's right now. Most blogs I have read see this as a better deal for the Twins. I think that will largely depend on how either one of their current players or someone brought in fills in the CF whole (particularly if top prospect Hicks can step up) and if the prospect Ryan got gets his control under control (pun intended). The immediate addition of Worley I am not excited about as he has been rather overrated. In each season he has pitched his ERA, WHIP, and B/9 have risen and his k/9 has gone down. Plus he's never thrown 135 innings in a season. But he is young and cheap, and certainly could improve and likely could not be worse than what Minnesota put out there. Coupled with the prospect he is a solid bottom rotation addition. The bigger issue is finding someone to really step in and help man the top of the rotation. The name that came up the most in mlbtraderumors.com winter meetings coverage with Minnesota was Liriano, and the team even made a formal offer to him. Yikes! Since that deal was never finalized, perhaps we should be happy that I was again only half right.
3. Yankees will resign Ichiro. Well, who could have predicted that the Yankees would perhaps be the most stingy team at Winter Meetings, so much so that agents were speaking out about their lack of seriousness? It is no secret they want under the luxury tax next year, but they are apparently going to extremes to get that done. But what is so astonishing is they are being so tight when now with ARod's surgery the Yankees have holes in their lineup in RF, 3B, and C (combine Martin, ARod, and Swisher's 2012 and that is a lot of offense lost too). Ichiro I have advocated for some time as the ideal match. So I'm a bit puzzled this has not happened yet, perhaps the Yankees have someone in mind and are waiting for things to happen to change the market. Either way, I was wrong.
4. Phillies will make a big move. I was right. The Phillies garnered a lot of attention dealing for Revere and also setting in motion a deal that was finalized afterwards due to a no-trade clause and MLB approval of money involved which sent Michael Young to Philly. It's not the deals I was expecting, but the Phillies made two of the larger moves. And they deserve a lot of credit, when Upton and Pagan were signed leaving Bourn as perhaps the last true CF leadoff hitter (and the most expensive) they avoided having to pay a lot of money for a lot of years (Bourn is after all a Boras client) by getting a high contact, high speed, high defense player (Revere) who is controllable for many years and currently costs the league minimum. Then in a weak 3B market they essentially got Michael Young for a relief pitcher and a low prospect. But the beauty here is they got most of Young's contract covered. They avoided overpaying (and overcommitting) mediocre players from the market with Young who while he had an unimpressive 2012 has through his career and as recently as 2011 (when he led the AL in hits and was 3rd in batting) shown he can be a quality hitter. He has more upside than probably ever free agent 3rd baseman not named Kevin Youkilis. The Phillies made noise not with the big signing but with smart trading, and they certainly took a lot of attention in winter meetings just as I said. I was right.
5. Seattle trades for a big name hitter or signs Nick Swisher. I was on the right track. Seattle is trying hard to improve their offense. They are rumored to be trying to make a deal for Mike Morse and were through much of winter meetings reportedly among the favorites to sign Josh Hamilton. I outright thought he was too rich for them. While they have been connected to Swisher, they do not seem front runners, and either way did not achieve either of these at the Winter Meetings. So while we're thinking alike, ultimately I was still wrong.
6. Zack Greinke signs with LA. I was right in that he did - ultimately signing with the Dodgers. I was wrong in that it did not happen in Winter Meetings but in the days following. No doubt much of the groundwork was laid at the meetings, and since I'm judging my own predictions to which I am partial I will call this eventually right.
7. Zack Greinke does not beat CC Sabathia's record contract. I was right on this front too. I was in fact double right in that I predicted he would set a new record for right hander's (surpassing Matt Cain's contract extension signed early this year). Technically Greinke set a record for annual salary, but I was talking about overall value, to which CC is still the holder of that particular record. I was worried I was going to be wrong here as much of the rumors during winter meetings suggested it would break the record, but luckily it didn't, and again the contract did not come until after winter meetings, but in general I'm willing to call myself right twice.
8. Juston Upton gets traded. This one looked for a while like it was going to be true, and I think it eventually will be. I just don't see him as a Diamondback on opening day. Especially if the Rangers lose out on another free agent (like Hamilton). It doesn't seem to be a matter of if at this point, but when. That said, as of now, I'm wrong.
9. Pierzynski wears a new uniform. Again, particularly because he makes sense in New York to me I thought this would have happened. I just recently read that the Yanks don't like his defense. But they have a lot of offense to replace this year, how many free agent catchers will be either so good defensively or have that great balance to make it worth passing up on AJ? It's not like Jorge Posada was some defensive whiz during his days in pinstripes. But I can complain all I want it doesn't change the fact that I was wrong.
10. A Cy Young Winner gets traded. Again I thought for a while it was going to happen. Interestingly both Cy Young winners were rumored to be available for the right deal. Compare that to last year's winners of Kershaw and Verlander (two players who are virtually untouchable). It still might. At this point it will most likely be Dickey and not Price since the Rays traded Shields away. But as Rosenthal illustrates, determining Dickey's trade value is rather difficult given that he is an aging knuckleballer, but a cy young winner in a thin pitching market. My gut is he gets traded, but the Mets are so slow on anything they do lately they may wait too long and find they have no suitors. If that happens then they need to extend him. So while we oddly had both Cy Young winners available for trade, no one made the offer that couldn't be refused when I thought someone would, leaving me wrong.

Not the best batting average out there. It was the most uneventful winter meetings in recent memory. This is likely due to the trend of signing stars to extensions, leaving the free agent market with a far more mediocre crop. So long as the offseason as a whole still has some excitement in store and the 2013 season is unpredictably awesome, then I can live with a quiet winter meetings.

Fake Mailbag - fast and furious

It has been a while since I did a mailbag feature, mainly because not enough people were sending in new questions. I came up with my own I think twice to keep it alive. But nothing. But this morning I thought I'd brighten some days with a good rapid fire edition. These ones too are made up mind you, but maybe the rapid fire version with more questions and shorter answers will help re-spark the tradition.
So here it is, back by unpopular demand:

Why does Snape really dislike Harry Potter?
Jealousy, because Harry is one of the few people in the entire HP universe with a normal name, while Snape's mother thought Severus was a good idea (and based on how Harry's father and godfather would make fun of Severus' name, she was wrong).

Will Disney's Star Wars Episode VII be any good?
Will it have light sabers and the opening scroll to John William's theme song? Then it will be good (so long as we don't expect it to surpass the original trilogy).

Was Jesus a Jew?
Is that really a surprise to anyone but neo-nazis anymore?

What's the secret to being a good pastor?
a steady diet of Jesus - consumed and served. And love for the people you serve. That's a pretty good start.

Heard any good knock knock jokes recently?
Here's an Old Testament one:
Knock! Knock! [who's there?] Jay [Jay who?] Well who were you expecting, Hazael? (read 1 Kings 19.17)

What is the worst Harry Potter book?
My least favorite is book three. But book four makes less sense. The first task of the Triwizard tournament is really the most perilous, and Harry who insists he is unprepared for everything and really does not want to participate could have elected to remove himself from the tasks by 1) not showing up (the reaction of Karkaroff when Harry arrives late to the second task indicates they were not expecting him to show even though the Goblet was supposedly a binding magical contract), 2) Diving in the water in the second task and resurfacing immediately, or 3) stepping into the maze of the final task and immediately removing himself by shooting red sparks into the air. Had he done that, Voldemort does not return.

Will you be seeing the movie the Hobbit?
Duh!

Who is playing 3B for the Yankees?
With Arod injured most of the year a defensive minded player who is not seeking multiple years makes the most sense: I could see Jack Hannahan or Scott Rolen filling the void. But I think bringing back Chavez made the most sense, although now he has signed with the Diamondbacks. The team is apparently pushing for Kevin Youkilis. If that is the Yanks top target, then I expect em to get it done, since Youk is unlikely to get more than two years on the market right now anyways.

Nicene or Apostles Creed?
I adhere to 'em both, but I have a bit more love for Nicene. Mainly because I haven't had the opportunity to say it as often as I used to and I miss it, but also because for things like confessing "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". For what it's worth to Apostles fans Luther did his catechism to the Apostles Creed.

Lincoln or Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer?
I haven't seen either movie and I still know how to answer that one: Lincoln is the better movie, Abe Linc Vamp killer the more historically accurate.

That'll do for this edition of rapid fire mailbag. To keep it alive I need questions. Post them in the comment section below. Until then, have a blessed one.
-Armchair Theologian.

Winter Meetings Predictions

It happens to be the busiest time of the year for Baseball Shopping too. Winter Meetings begins the time when GM's and agents are together in one place, which allows for a lot of numbers and names to get exchanged. It's not Black Friday deals, but it is Black Friday kind of transactions. Big names often find their homes around this time, and blockbuster deals happen. And the free agent market thins out and gets set at all the positions as players sign.

With that in mind, here are my 10 predictions (some bold some not) for this year's winter meetings:

1. Brewers make quiet additions: Doug Melvin recently made comments suggesting a 2013 payroll of about $80 million, which is around my initial conservative guess of $83 million. That means the team is not going to be in the market for big names, and will likely try to spread that money out over various low risk players hoping one or two pan out. The best chance at a big name is Dempster who has been a rumored target. But between cost cutting and Melvin reportedly not wanting to offer more than two years I think someone else will land him. I think Milwaukee will be patient on getting a starter and will focus on the bullpen. Thus expect 1-3 arms to be signed/acquired over the meetings, but with Axford still on the roster I would not expect the top closer arms to sign in Milwaukee.
2. Twins will sign at least one starter and trade/sign a second: Since Minnesota is still up the creek without a paddle, they need to get pitching. Considering some of the names they are targeting I think they won't have trouble snagging one or two of them. They still also have Willingham in particular as a trade chip, so if they are not attracting the free agents they want I expect them to send him somewhere for someone, hopefully they will do better at fixing their current team than when they dealt Span recently. So I expect them to walk away with some of the rotation spots filled, and would not be surprised if they add a reliever or two as well.
3. Yankees will resign Ichiro Suzuki: Ichiro's agent seems to be frustrated with the silence from the Yankees to date, and Ichiro is starting to generate interest from other teams, but his comments earlier in the offseason clearly indicate he favors returning to New York. And given that he is an ideal one year candidate and New York is trying to avoid multi-yaer deals with players so they can stay under the luxury tax threshold in 2014. He is a professional veteran who thrived in his limited time at Yankee stadium last year. He is a perfect fit for New York.
4. The Phillies will make a big move: Philadelphia has become a major market team in recent years and watched their dynasty fall apart last season. They even unloaded some of their big names like Pence and Victorino. But now they are poised for a new year. The thing is the Phillies are not quite in a position to be considered serious contenders (certainly not favorites) in the division but also are not that far away from it. With Atlanta having a lot of holes to fill this would be the time to try a comeback. Or the team could start to unload for the future. Either way they will probably indicate their direction at winter meetings, but I do not expect them to stand pat. They could either stun us with a trade sending away someone like Cliff Lee or they could steal the attention by signing a Josh Hamilton or Michael Bourn. I think the latter is more likely.
5. Seattle either trades for a big name hitter or signs Nick Swisher: The Mariners have enough pitching they could put together a package for someone although I don't know who, they do not seem a match for Justin Upton. More likely though I think they pony up and sign Nick Swisher. It just makes sense. Seattle needs offense bad. Swisher will cost though a lot less than say Josh Hamilton. Their reluctance to deal Felix Hernandez means the team really needs to capitalize on the years they have him. And after several seasons of disappointment, this may be general manager Jack Z's last offseason to turn this team around. Swisher's flexibility of playing 1B or OF lets them plug him in around the young players that thrive most and replace the ones who are just not performing. So long as Swisher does not need to play for a contender (already having a ring I don't think he will) this is the team that needs him most and therefore will likely pay the most (or offer the most years).
6. Zack Greinke signs with LA. I just don't know which LA team gets him. Whether it is the Angels of Anaheim  or the Dodgers, no other teams out there seem to have more money or desire for Greinke. I doubt he ever packed up his bags after the season ended. But when the dust settles this winter meeting, I think he'll still be in the City of Angels, and be getting paid a lot more to do it.
7. Zack Greinke does not beat CC Sabathia's record contract: There is some speculation that he will. But Greinke in my view just is not that good. The only pitcher who I think had a real chance at that was Tim Lincecum, that is, until he decided to have a horrible 2012. Had they hit the open market Verlander or King Felix I suppose probably could beat that total too. Greinke will get close maybe even match Sabathia, but I think without the Yankees bidding (which they won't) he's not getting that money. But he will surpass Matt Cain's contract and become the highest paid right-handed pitcher ever.
8. Justin Upton gets traded: This might be the boldest prediction yet. Mainly because teams have been trying to trade for Upton since last year and have thus far been unsuccessful. The Diamondbacks continue to have a high asking price and are seeking a young short stop. But enough teams need affordable offense that someone will put together the package. I think Boston and Tampa Bay could meet the demand. If Texas got desperate so could they. Houston could really surprise us by making a package around Lowrie. Where he goes I don't know, but if Arizona waits and Upton struggles at all this year his value will tank, and I just don't think either team or player wants him there. If it happens in Winter Meetings it will be in its final hours, but I think as big names get signed teams will up their pursuit of Upton.
9. Pierzynski wears a new uniform: AJ Pierzynski has been a member of the White Sox since 2005 and he keeps quietly doing a great job for them. But Chicago has Flowers who can step in and catch for this team. More than that, AJ added power to his game this year and there are lots of teams looking for catching. Personally I think he is a perfect match for either New York teams. He has the kind of New York attitude, and Yankee stadium would perhaps let him still show some lefty power even if his 2012 power was a fluke.
10. A Cy Young Winner gets traded: Perhaps most likely a 2012 Cy Young winner. The Rays may trade out of their pitching depth and Price being a Boras client is going to get expensive fast (especially after securing the Cy Young). While Shields and Hellickson are supposedly more likely to get traded Price would net the best return. But even more likely than that is NL winner knuckleballer Dickey who the Mets are reportedly shopping after extension talks have failed to progress. It's not often it happens, but a Cy Young winner may be dealt shortly after winning his award.

Well there you have it. 10 predictions. We will check in after Winter Meetings and see how I fared. Hopefully better than when I predicted the Gold Glove awards. Tune in then, until then - have a great offseason.

Centuries of Women Preachers

I'm a part of a church tradition that ordains women as preachers. And I support it. I've been pastored by some fabulous females in my life and know several others. But even in my church it was not always this way. Lutherans were in fact rather late to the party when it comes to ordaining women in America. And like other Christian bodies, not all Lutherans do. The Missouri Synod, of which I was once a part does not, along with other more "conservative" (for lack of a better word) Lutheran groups like the Wisconsin Synod. And other protestant groups as well as our Catholic brothers do not recognize women pastors. And these groups have brought forth many great theologians. Bo Giertz, perhaps my favorite theologian, was opposed to women's ordination.

But this is not to convince people or engage the debate of whether women should be ordained. That's another controversial blog in its own right. This is to lift up how for far longer than the modern movements for ordination of women there has been a tradition of women preaching in the church...covertly.

This came to me while worshiping in a church that is very strict about the role of women in church. At this church women could not serve in the leadership of any kind so as to not have spiritual authority over men. In this church, women don't get up and speak at church. Yet a woman preached there covertly, perhaps no one knew it or saw it. What I am talking about is the key role some great women have played in the church's rich tradition of hymnody. And this tradition beats out any claim about modern feminism or societal pressure on the church, it goes to the pure fact that some women used their gifts to proclaim Christ in houses of worship across miles and centuries. 

If you think this is different, pause a moment. For churches that do not let women teach, consider that one of the most powerful tools towards teaching theology through the history of the church has been her song. Consider how great theologians like Luther have identified music and hymnody as a means by which the people are proclaiming Christ. Women are defining and teaching and articulating the church's voice! And they are doing it splendidly.

Some like Hildegard of Bingen pen the poetry, or others like my personal favorite - Catherine Winkworth have created the authoritative translations of hymns that are so firm in their form that every time a new hymnal messes with them it is met with displeasure or surprise from its members. In fact it was the singing of a Winkworth hymn even with its older English language that gave me the inspiring thought of this blog. And translations are essential to preaching as well. Even though Catherine did not originally pen the hymns, her take on them have been essential. Anyone familiar with the art of translation - especially biblical or theological translation understand how influential the translator can in fact be towards the final product. This is why in some churches certain bible's are anathema, or other ones hailed. I recently compared the United Church of Christ's New Century Hymnal  version of "Praise to the Lord the Almighty" to Winkworth's, the UCC hymnal was a completely independent translation not a variation of Winkworth's like some hymnals do, and unless you were told or heard the tunes one might be surprised that the two texts were translations of the same song. 

Yet how many of these churches, so insistent that women be silent, that they have no authority, that they not be the teachers and preachers of the church are aware of how much their worship is in fact guided by these female voices of the past? How many would see that as an affront? In fact I imagine if they read this they will say it is totally different, they are not verbally doing it themselves. But consider how many of them would permit women to write sermons for the pastor to read. Then all of the sudden the act of placing the proclamation there would be an offense. Now some churches like the Missouri Synod in particular will see this as distinguishing the pastoral office from the priesthood of believers. But others which take the restriction on women's authority far deeper will have a harder time. And even the pastoral office, this usually leads to some form of restricting the voice of public proclamation of women in the church (women like all Christians can preach individually but not in the worship setting), yet Luther always saw music tied to proclamation. While he names this proclamation particularly to the priesthood of all believers, we should not ignore how it was women who authoritatively shaped this proclamation, perhaps more firmly than pastors shape the nature of each Sunday worship. 

Why do these churches not seem to mind? Well along with the fact that many don't really think about the power, role, and influence women are having this way, is the fact that the stuff is just too darn good to ignore. It's because they believe there is something quite godly and appropriate about what people are learning and proclaiming when singing these songs. It is because the authority of every preacher, every teaching, every doctrine, every claim of faith is rooted not in the people who articulated it but in the God who revealed himself first to us. It is because the true authority of preaching has never been in sex but in Christ, who speaks wherever his word is properly taught and proclaimed. Consider that hymnals often go through a rigorous process of determining what is "in" and what is "out". Consider how important teaching and doctrine is in the formation of hymnals or how introducing teachings through a new hymnal often brings new controversy in the church. Consider that the hymn's content has been what mattered, and we see that these churches know the power and role of music in the church, and yet still have let women preach to us and teach us with them. Then we see that women have used their gifts to be our preachers for far longer than any modern movement. 

And I, who believe the role of women as preachers can be identified in the biblical texts themselves, would say then that they have been carrying this fine tradition since Mary found a small gathering of disciples and proclaimed aloud "I have seen the Lord!"

MLB - Twins offseason just got worse

So when I offered my drastic steps to get the Twins pitching somewhat in order in a previous post I already noted that the Twins had made a mistake by letting a quality affordable option in Scott Baker sign elsewhere when he was ready to sign with the Twins.

Since then things have gone from bad to worse for Minnesota baseball. At least for now. 

• The short window I proposed to trade with Seattle passed when Chone Figgins was released, losing the chance at taking his salary on in order to get Jason Vargas. 
• Atlanta signed BJ Upton, which totally changes some of their demand for OF help. Although it does not totally rule them out yet as a trade target.
• Then out of desperation it looks, the Twins dealt what might have been their best trade chip in Span (best in terms of having a team friendly contract, his position and place in the line-up being in demand, and the team having a solid replacement option), as I had suggested in my original breakdown, he went to the Washington Nationals. They made sense as a destination for some time. But instead of that in any way being a deal which might solidify the wasteland of Minnesota pitching (or as I had proposed acquired players that allow the team to unload other offensive players for pitching) they received a single pitching prospect who has never pitched past A ball.
• If only that were all, while the rumor was later downplayed in how serious the discussions were, reports also came out that the team was having conversations with Francisco Liriano.

Really?!? That is the current plan? Let Baker sign elsewhere but consider a return of Liriano? Trade Span for a prospect who is not close to MLB ready?


Now the upside this prospect could eventually prove to be great for this team. Baseball America reportedly suggested he would rank 6th in the Twins farm system. So they did get a quality prospect, my issue is the team has a massive need at the MLB level and publicly stated intent to reload their pitching and have done little to do that. Liriano needs to move on, I think he is a fit for teams like the Astros or Cubs, but he should be the second last free agent starter Minnesota is considering, right after Jason Marquis. Twins GM Ryan said he will let the prospect (whose name is Alex Meyer by the way) determine how far he is from the MLB, which loosely translates to, "Yeah, he has a chance at pitching in the majors soon. Since we know we were supposed to get MLB pitching and haven't we don't want fans to think he is too far away, so we'll say something that is basically true of all players: if he does well enough, he will be in the majors shortly."

So what does the team do now?
I think they need to up their pursuit of two free agent starters: Edwin Jackson and Brandon McCarthy. In Jackson you know what you're going to get: A hard thrower who will give you lots of innings with an ERA in the 3.50-4.00 range. In McCarthy you're not sure what you're going to get because he carries to big question marks: how well he will perform with a new team (since he was quite good in Oakland pretty unimpressive in Texas) and how his health will hold up. But together you make quality upgrades for this team without breaking bank on the biggest free agents out there. And they are both younger free agents, which will mean you will have less regression at the end of the deal. I think Jackson will get done if they give him a fourth year, since last year only one team would only give him three and he had to settle for one year. Four years at maybe 50 million would do it. It's kinda high, but since the Twins are now relying greatly on Free Agents, they have to outbid others. McCarthy I think two years at say 8 mil a season with a vesting 3rd year at 10 mil might do the trick. It is an expensive upgrade to give 66-76 million for two pitchers no doubt. But don't blame me, my first proposal would have saved the team money.

The other option is the team deals Willingham for a pitcher from teams like Atlanta, Tampa, or Seattle. They would then probably have to sign someone, maybe Ryan Ludwick (although his career indicates his power is highly dictated by the ballpark, struggling in places like Pittsburgh and San Diego but thriving in St. Louis and Cincinnati, unless those two seasons in PIT and SD were chalked up to other struggles he may really find Target Field as a tough place to hit home runs), or the team could reacquire one of Cuddyer or Kubel - guys who may not cost too much in a trade and have provided solid (but not elite) offense at Target field. But in those situations, you still have to offer the best deal, and the team is not good enough to part with any players they see as a legit part of their future.

This is the tough position Minnesota is in. They are not rebuilding, but they cannot reload at the cost of the future because they are not really close enough to challenging for the top of the division. They publicly state their intent to improve the rotation, and yet do nothing for that yet. But Winter Meetings, where most of the offseason action takes place, is around the corner. Here's to hoping the Twins are going there with a plan in mind. Because if they walk away from their having twiddled their thumbs or only adding A ball players or scrap heap pitchers, you might as well wait for 2014 before getting excited.